We’ve constantly been sharing a list of our recent reads in our weekly emails for The Good Investors.
Do subscribe for our weekly updates through the orange box in the blog (it’s on the side if you’re using a computer, and all the way at the bottom if you’re using mobile) – it’s free!
But since our readership-audience for The Good Investors is wider than our subscriber base, we think sharing the reading list regularly on the blog itself can benefit even more people. The articles we share touch on a wide range of topics, including investing, business, and the world in general.
Here are the articles for the week ending 02 May 2021:
1. Analysis: China digital currency trials show threat to Alipay, WeChat duopoly – Reuters
In China’s commercial hub Shanghai, six big state banks are quietly promoting digital yuan ahead of a May 5 shopping festival, carrying out a political mandate to provide consumers with a payment alternative to Alipay and WeChat Pay.
The banks are persuading merchant and retail clients to download digital wallets so that transactions during the pilot programme can be made directly in digital yuan, bypassing the ubiquitous payment plumbing laid by tech giants Ant Group, an affiliate of Alibaba 9988.HK, and Tencent 0700.HK.
“People will realise that digital yuan payment is so convenient that I don’t have to rely on Alipay or WeChat Pay anymore,” said a bank official involved in the rollout of e-CNY for the Shanghai trial, under the guidance of China’s central bank. The official is not authorised to speak with media and declined to be identified.
China’s development of a sovereign digital currency, which is far ahead of similar initiatives in other major economies, looks increasingly poised to erode the dominance of Ant Group’s Alipay and Tencent’s WeChat Pay in online payments…
…In public, the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) says e-CNY won’t compete with AliPay or WeChat Pay, and serves only as a “backup” or “redundancy”.
But in private, state banks marketing the digital fiat currency for the central bank bluntly describe Beijing’s intention to undercut the duo’s dominance.
2. The Psychology of Fighting the Last Crash – Ben Carlson
The Great Financial Crisis in 2008 left an indelible mark on my psyche as an investor.
But it wasn’t the crash itself that has shaped me as an investor. It was the aftermath of the crash.
I joined the investment office of an endowment fund in July of 2007, just as cracks were beginning to show in the financial system. My first 2 years or so on the job were spent in survival mode as the financial system teetered on the edge of collapse.
It was a scary period to live through as an investor…
…I’m not saying I predicted the unbelievable returns we’ve seen since the bottom on March 20091 but it was bizarre to me how many institutional investors were creating more conservative allocations coming out of the crash than they had going into them. It was completely backwards for how you should wisely invest capital.
This is what happens though. Recency bias causes people to invest in the rearview mirror by constantly fighting the last war.
This same mentality was at work when people began calling the technology sector a bubble in the early-to-mid-2010s:..
…Everyone was still so scarred from the dot-com blow-up following the late-1990s boom that another tech bubble seemed like the obvious call. Instead the 2010s were dominated by the tech sector and anyone who got in the way of that freight train got run over.
3. Here’s a full recap of the best moments from Warren Buffett at Berkshire Hathaway’s annual meeting – Li Yun, Jesse Pound, Maggie Fitzgerald
Buffett warned newbie investors that picking great companies is more complicated than just selecting a promising industry.
“There’s a lot more to picking stocks than figuring out what’s going to be a wonderful industry in the future,” said Buffett.
Buffett put up a slide of all the auto companies from years go that started with the letter “M;” however, the list was so long it didn’t fit on one slide. The “Oracle of Omaha” had to narrow the list to automobile manufactures that started with “Ma” to fit the names on one page.
Buffett said there were about 2,000 companies that entered the auto business in the 1900′s because investors and entrepreneurs expected the industry to have an amazing future. In 2009, there were three automakers left and two went bankrupt, said Buffett…
…Warren Buffett and his long-time business partner Charlie Munger addressed the combination of high government spending and rock-bottom interest rates, with Munger saying that he didn’t think the extreme scenario was sustainable forever.
Munger said that professional economists had been too confident in their analysis and had been proven wrong about many things, but he said that Modern Monetary Theory, which calls for greater fiscal spending with less regard for budget deficits, was not necessarily the answer.
“The Modern Monetary Theorists are more confident than they ought to be, too. I don’t think any of us know what’s going to happen with this stuff,” Munger said. “I do think there’s a good chance that this extreme conduct is more feasible than everybody thought. But I do know that if you just keep doing it without any limit it will end in disaster.”…
…Warren Buffett weighed in on the white-hot SPAC market, saying that the mania won’t last forever and it makes the deal-making environment more competitive.
“It’s a killer. The SPACs generally have to spend their money in two years as I understand it. If you put a gun to my head to buy a business in two years, I’d buy one,” Buffett said with a laugh. “There’s always pressure from private equity funds.”
Special purpose acquisition companies are formed to raise capital to merge with a private company, which will be taken public in the process, usually within two years. More than 500 blank-check deals with over $138 billion funds are seeking their target companies currently, according to SPAC Research.
“That won’t go on forever, but it’s where the money is now and Wall Street goes where the money is,” Buffett said. “SPACs have been working for a while and if you secure a famous name on it you could sell almost anything.”
4. This company built one of the world’s most efficient warehouses by embracing chaos – Sarah Kessler
What makes Amazon’s warehouses work is the way they organize inventory: with complete randomness…
…At a traditionally organized warehouse, when a shipment of, say, toothpaste arrives, an employee looks up where the toothpaste shelf is located, and then moves the box to that shelf.
When a box of toothpaste arrives at an Amazon warehouse, though, the process works differently. An employee removes each individual tube and stows it wherever he finds open space. Placement is completely random. Items aren’t organized by where they’re being shipped; they aren’t—aside from very big items—organized by size; and they aren’t organized by the type of customer who is likely to order them. A shipment of 50 tubes of toothpaste may ultimately be distributed to and stored in 50 different places.
On a visit to an Amazon warehouse in New Jersey last year, I saw a box of Irish breakfast tea, next to a board game called “Quick Cups,” next to a Hamilton Beach Juicer.
This random system has been in place since early on in Amazon’s 24-year history, and to a casual observer, the result appears chaotic. The reason it makes sense to group these random products together has everything to do with technology: the speed and frequency with which customers order online, and the tools that Amazon has developed to keep track of every item in its vast warehouses.
First, random storage makes finding the toothpaste faster in an era of on-demand efficiency. If there were a dedicated “toothpaste shelf” and someone ordered toothpaste, a “picker”—how Amazon refers to employees who gather items—would need to travel there, whether he were 10 feet or 100 yards away from that location. But if the warehouse stores toothpaste in 50 different locations, there’s a much better chance that there’s a tube close to some picker. There’s also a greater chance that the second item the customer ordered is also nearby.
“With the millions of items that we ship, every opportunity to improve a process by a second is relevant,” Alperson says.
Randomness is also preferable when it comes to managing the wide range of items customers now order online—most practically by saving space. Amazon warehouses carry a huge variety of items that can be ordered at any moment, but they do not carry a huge number of each item. “They may only have one box of Cheerios,” says Tom Galluzzo, the founder of Iam Robotics, which makes warehouse robots. “If you were to have a space for every product, you would need a gigantic warehouse.” Amazon’s largest warehouse is already 1 million square feet, which is about 17 NFL football fields in size. Reserving empty space on the “toothpaste shelf” while waiting for the next shipment of toothpaste would mean its warehouses would need to be even bigger. It’s more efficient to use any free shelf space available.
5. The Delusions of Crowds: Why People Go Mad in Groups – William Bernstein
Neuroscientists believe that narratives powerfully engage our brain’s fast-moving limbic system—our evolutionarily ancient “reptile brain”—and so make an end run around our large cerebral cortex—our newer, conscious, and much slower “thinking brain.” Most of the time, we employ narratives towards useful ends: The deployment of scary stories about unhealthy diets and smoking to encourage changes in mealtime behavior and tobacco consumption, of sermons and fables about honesty and hard work that improve societal function, and so forth. On the downside, by overwhelming our reasoning system and discouraging logical thought, narratives can get us into analytical trouble.
Thus, the more we depend on narratives, and the less on hard data, the more we are distracted away from the real world. Ever lose yourself so deeply in a novel that you became oblivious to the world around you? Ever heard a radio broadcast so hypnotizing that you sat in your driveway for ten minutes so you didn’t miss the end? Psychologists call this “transportation,” and it’s fatal to reason.
It turns out that even when presented with compelling narratives clearly labeled as fiction, we become unable to segregate the worlds of fiction and fact. In other words, we cannot cleanly “toggle” between the literary and real worlds, as occurred after the 1975 release of the movie Jaws, which caused formerly bold swimmers to huddle close to the shoreline. Producers Darryl Zanuck and David Brown knew just what they were doing; they delayed the film’s release to coincide with the summer season. As they put it, “There is no way that a bather who has seen or heard of the movie won’t think of a great white shark when he puts his toe in the ocean.”
Psychologists have studied this “Jaws effect” by exposing people to compelling narratives, and have found that the more strongly their subjects are transported into the narrative, the more their opinions are influenced by it; critically, it doesn’t matter whether the narratives are clearly labeled as fact or fiction. Even more amazingly, the more the subject is transported into a narrative, the less able they are to perform simple analysis of its content. In plain English, a high degree of narrative transportation impairs not only the ability to distinguish fact from fiction, but also impairs one’s critical facilities.
Put yet another way, the deeper the reader or listener enters into the story, the more they suspend disbelief, and the less attention they pay to whether it is, in reality, true or false. This study, and many others like it, make this startling and cynical suggestion: If you want to analyze a subject, stick to the numbers and facts, and ignore the surrounding narrative. But if you want to convince others of something, forget the facts and data, and tell them the catchiest story you can.
6. Who Disrupts the Disrupters? – Packy McCormick
Web3 might represent the only threat to disrupt the world’s most powerful tech companies, the ones that make up most of my portfolio…
…Disruption is how little startups with modest resources compete against large incumbents with vaults full of cash: they find customers the incumbents ignore or overserve (and overcharge), build “good enough” products for them, and then expand into the mainstream as they improve their products.
Today’s tech giants aren’t as easy to disrupt as Xerox or the newspapers, though. The people running Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Google, Spotify, Netflix, and the like have read Christensen. They haven’t done what incumbents have traditionally done: “improved their products and services for the most demanding (and usually most profitable) customers.” (Apple is an exception on the hardware side, although it’s been upmarket for a long-time and has yet to be disrupted.) They don’t ignore less profitable consumers because the internet, with high fixed costs and near-zero marginal costs, rewards companies for serving every consumer.
The more consumers companies can spread their fixed costs over, the more profitable they become. Facebook is free, as are its subsidiaries, WhatsApp and Instagram. It monetizes through ads, with near-zero marginal cost to serve them. More eyeballs, more profit. It would cost nearly $100 million to individually purchase all of the songs that you can listen to on Spotify for $9.99 per month. Amazon famously views your margin as its opportunity…
…Thompson’s confidence in the incumbents was based on the idea that even if new input/output (I/O) devices like wearables, voice, or AR replaces the phone, the incumbents are still in the best position to capture the opportunity. Facebook doesn’t care if you scroll the feed on your phone, AR glasses, or VR goggles — it will serve you its feed, and the ads that support it, anywhere, anytime. It might even sell you the devices. The front-end is relatively meaningless; the incumbents are still best-positioned on the back-end.
But Thompson missed Web3 in his list of potential threats, and Web3 changes some important things that the incumbents are not best-positioned to handle.
To start, blockchains are not just a new I/O device. They aren’t devices at all. They represent a new paradigm.
Blockchains and crypto let you do things that previous computing paradigms couldn’t, the most important of which, according to Dixon, is that you can “write code that makes strong commitments about how it will behave in the future.”
No one person or company can change the rules. There will only ever be 21 million bitcoin, no matter what anyone tries to do to change that. Strong commitments extend far beyond bitcoin, to Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs), Decentralized Finance (DeFi), Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs), and new blockchain-based products no one’s yet dreamed up.
If the code can make strong commitments, you don’t need central platforms to make and enforce the rules. They just create economic drag. Instead, you can allow creators and consumers to share more of the profits that Aggregators and Platforms previously captured.
7. All Models Are Wrong But Some Are Useful – Ben Carlson
I also looked at economic growth, returns for housing, stocks, bonds and cash, earnings growth, interest rate levels and stock market valuations.
You can see the 1970s were a period with high growth in earnings, GDP and wages but inflation was out of control so that growth was a mirage. Then you had a period like the 1990s where the economy did well, wages were up, inflation was average and stocks went nuts. Wages actually outpaced inflation by a wide amount in the 2010s but those gains weren’t equally distributed.
While inflation and wages do have some sort of relationship, it’s not as clear-cut as you would think.
Once you begin looking at all of these variables you realize there are relationships here but caveats abound. There is no such thing as a “normal” market or economic environment. Each period is unique in its own way.
Markets and economies are constantly changing as are the inputs that make them up.
For example, Michael Mauboussin wrote an excellent research piece this month about the relationship between valuations and accounting methods that bears this out…
…It’s gone from under 5% in 1980 to around 40% today. This has to be alarming for investors, no? Almost half the companies in the U.S. stock market lose money each year?!
Technically yes but it’s not as bad as it appears. This says more about the composition of the stock market and accounting methodologies than anything. Mauboussin explains:
“Intangible investment has been in a steady uptrend, with a brief interruption during the financial crisis, and passed maintenance spending in 2000. To put this figure in context, investments in intangible assets were roughly $1.8 trillion in 2020, more than double the $800 billion in capital expenditures. These data put the lie to the assertion that companies are investing less than they used to. This work shows clearly that investments in intangible assets are rising relative to those in tangible assets.
As a result, the failure to measure the magnitude and return on intangible investments is a large and growing problem.”
Basically, these intangibles are showing up as an expense on the income statement when really they should show up as an asset on the balance sheet. Here’s the kicker:
“Investors generate excess returns when they buy the shares of companies prior to a revision in expectations about future cash flows. A key determinant of cash flows is a company’s ability to allocate capital to investments that create value. The current principles of accounting do a poor job of separating investments and expenses, creating a veil that obscures the magnitude and return on investment.”
If you were to simply take these numbers at face value the stock market looks like a house of cards. But if you dig a little deeper you understand how much different markets are today than they were in the past.
Disclaimer: The Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life. Of all the companies mentioned, we currently have a vested interest in Alphabet (parent of Google), Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Netflix, and Tencent. Holdings are subject to change at any time.